memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Starfleet/archive
I would like to propose the following message, to be added to this article and those of all agencies in starfleet. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 18:07, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST) or :::The suggestion here has been removed because it misused some formatting. You can still find it in the page history (Edit is labelled: '''Suggestion removed, used id=toc'). -- Cid Highwind 18:01, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I'd go with the first one as it more clearly shows the different links for those of us without links being underlined in our browsers, the bigger font is good too. -- Avron 03:31, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::How about this instead.. it avoids that table/clumping effect.. Captain Mike K. Bartel 05:01, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST) Well, it adds two divisions that were not mentioned in the article itself, but for the rest. I only don't like Starfleet Medical being the only one on the second line, so I fixed that. How is it now? --Redge | ''Talk'' 11:42, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST) : I like the last one here; my 2¢. — THOR 21:51, 29 Mar 2005 (EST) Dividing Starfleet into pre- and post-Federation sections is a little confusing and inefficient. Combining them into one category with a more detailed timeline, showing the evolution of this agency from a single-planet-single-function agency into the organization it later became through the centuries. Does UESPA still exist in the 24th Century? What about the 29th Century? Kirk described Starfleet once as a "combined service" but denied being in the military, yet once stated "I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." Colonel West's appearance in Star Trek 6 would indicate that Starfleet Marines of some sort (MACOs?) still exist in the 23rd Century. This is convoluted enough without splitting the subject into unnecessary categories. I try to use canon sources as much as possible and minimize speculation. If I do, I usually type it in Italics.--Mike Nobody 02:15, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT) I put the table into a template so that it could be used on the other "branch" pages. nWo 4 Life 21:16, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC) Starfleet Do we really need to divide Starfleet into pre- and post-Federation categories? It seems a little confusing and inefficient to me. Why not combine them into one concise timeline detailing how it began from a single-planet-single-function agency into a de-facto military operation to what it became in later centuries? Is there still a UESPA in the 24th Century? What about the 29th Century? Kirk once described Starfleet as a "combined service", yet denied being the military, and once stated "I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." There seems to be a Starfleet Marines (MACOs, maybe?)in the 23rd Century, due to the presence of Colonel West in Star Trek 6. This subject is too long and convoluted enough without splitting it up into unnecessary categories.--Mike Nobody 07:05, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC) Nav template removed I removed the navigation template from this articla and replaced it with a bullet list containing the same links. I feel that the template is misplaced at this position - it is supposed to be used as a navigation help between those articles, not necessarily as a shortcut to avoid "real" content. Speaking of which, this list of "Branches and Agencies" could probably changed into a definition list with a one-sentence explanation of each. If someone feels that this template is still useful as an additional navigation help on this page, it could be added to the bottom of the article, where it belongs. -- Cid Highwind 20:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) Starfleet logo Is there a canon-based emblem or logo for the Federation Starfleet (different from Starfleet (Earth))? I'm surprised not to find one in this article, and a preliminary search didn't result in anything probative. - Intricated 18:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Ronald Moore's Statement A recent addition to the Starfleet article lists a background note about Ronald D. Moore commenting that Starfleet is the military/scientific/exploratory arm of the United Federation of Planets. This seems kind of redundant due to the fact that this is basically already stated in the introduction statement. Should it be kept? - Enzo Aquarius 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) :I think it was a controversy for a long time as to whether Starfleet was military in nature (Gene's vision was exploratory & diplomatic, as I understand). Although to a degree, especially since the Dominion War, I think this has been settled, having a statement from a member of the writing staff may have value. -- StAkAr Karnak 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ::Personally, I feel it was settled in TOS: Errand of Mercy, where Starfleet was gearing up for war with the Klingons. Kind of makes clear that they were the military arm. There are many other examples as well, such as Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Commander, Starfleet v. Commander-in-Chief In the article, it is stated that the Commander, Starfleet, and the Commander in Chief have different responsibilities. Yet, in the articles for both positions, it speculates that the positions may be one and the same. Is there canon proof either way? Ssaint04 15:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) :No. I do not believe they are the same however. What do you think? Federation 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Starfleet and Bahir's Father Correct me where I'm wrong, but a "country" where the Military Personel are held up as the paragons of all virtue (look how many times in the show people say something about the greatness and incoruptability of Starfleet Officers), the military and police force are the same, and the military can try civilians like Bashir's father and even accept plea bargan's, the constitution provides for an intelligence service above the law that answers to nobody, that country is a Fascist country, no? Should it be mentioned that the Federation would be, in the 20th century, considered Fascist? Maybe in italics. 82.81.147.54 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)